BBC Headline: Arson attack 'racially motivated'

[Woodchuck2000]

It's also worth noting, again, that a victim of a racially aggravated offence may be of ANY race (including, as shown above, white British); so on that basis, the law isn't drawing a distinction or division between racial groups, it's applying the same standard to all.

For the record, as I think some people are misunderstanding, I have never proposed that any bias for or against a particular race is shown in any such cases. I'm entirely aware that people of all races can be the subject of racially motivated incidents. Any examples given are purely illustrative...

Coming at this from a different angle then, is it fair to say that hate driven by a particular discriminating factor is worse than abstract hate? If you argue that racial hatred is worse than abstract hatred, would you also argue that religious hatred is worse than abstract hatred? The distinction being (before anyone asks) that race is intrinsic, religion a matter of choice.

If you propose to elevate both racial and religious hatred above more abstract hate, should the same be done to all other forms of discriminatory hatred? In this linked article a schoolgirl was stabbed because of her taste in music. Should this be considered as an aggravating factor? If not, why not?

If so, where should the line be drawn? I would argue that almost all crime is motivated by some discriminatory factor. Some people are attacked because they belong to a gang or particular group. Some people are attacked because they're rich. Some are attacked because of their religion or sexuality. If a crime is committed because of a discriminatory factor, should that be taken into account in all cases?

In terms of response to this, I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts on where the line should be drawn. Either it's above racial hatred (i.e. no discriminatory factors are accounted for) or it's somewhere in the middle (e.g. hatred based on race/religion are bad, but hatred based on relative wealth is okay) or it's below all factors (i.e. all discriminatory factors should be considered - murdering someone becuase you hate their shoes is aggravated). [edit for sp.]

[Woodchuck2000]

Firstly,

Its not the specific groups of people (asians,blacks etc) fault that the media chose to write that its a racially motivated attack.

I've never said that the current reportage is the fault of any group - I am annoyed at the media and the justice system.

Secondly an attack on a white person from an asian or black guy is just as much a racialy motivated attack.

I agree entirely. I've never said that any particular combination of races abusing each other is worse/better than any other.

As an Asian, If i saw a group of black or asian youths attacking a white person or anyone for that matter I wouldnt stand for it.

And rightly so!

Also dont you think its important to know why certain attacks happend? For example by stating 'racially' motivated attack, atleast shows us that their is still some work to do in our communities to stem racism. And the same goes for homophobic attacks or any other types of attacks.

My counter-argument to this is that the people who would use the information in a positive way to try to improve things are not racist anyway. People with racist leanings see a headline "White man stabbed in racially-aggravated assault" [PURELY FOR EXAMPLE, FOLKS!] and use it as an excuse to re-inforce their prejudice against the perpetrators. Racially motivated incidents are examples of divisions within our community. Sensational reporting of such divisions doesn't help the matter, in my opinion.

Education is the key not ignorance. Its not the publics fault the media is a pile of pi$$.

Amen.

[nichomach]

Coming at this from a different angle then, is it fair to say that hate driven by a particular discriminating factor is worse than abstract hate?

I'd argue that hatred is not abstract in any event; hatred has to have an object, be it an individual or a group.

If you argue that racial hatred is worse than abstract hatred, would you also argue that religious hatred is worse than abstract hatred?

As noted, I don't believe in such a thing as abstract hatred, but I would consider that religious hatred should be regarded as an aggravating factor; and recent legislation recognizes that.

The distinction being (before anyone asks) that race is intrinsic, religion a matter of choice.

Not to a person of faith; they would state (indeed I would state) that faith is intrinsic to who we are - our belief is no more a matter of choice to us than whether it's raining, what colour the sky is...

If you propose to elevate both racial and religious hatred above more abstract hate, should the same be done to all other forms of discriminatory hatred?

Where it is obvious (as in the case of both race and religion) that there is a widespread, indeed endemic, problem with a particular form of discrimination or with criminality motivated by such a form of discrimination, then I think that it does behove society to consider whether some specific legislative provision should be made to make it clear that it will not be tolerated.

In this linked article a schoolgirl was stabbed because of her taste in music. Should this be considered as an aggravating factor? If not, why not?

It's quite probable that the alleged motivation WILL be considered as an aggravating factor at sentencing in the event that the accused are found guilty. Can't comment as yet, since there's no verdict and thus no sentence, but in general, where there is little or trivial motivation this is generally treated as an aggravating factor, as per the train stabbing recently where the murderer received life with a recommended minimum of 21 years before being eligible to apply for release on license (usually it's more like 15 years).

If so, where should the line be drawn? I would argue that almost all crime is motivated by some discriminatory factor.

That's ludicrously overstating the case. A great deal of crime is committed for gain, because it seemed like a good idea at the time, boredom, transient disputes over a spilled pint or whether someone called someone else's girlfriend a "monkey-faced tart" (true, by the way). In fact, a relatively small minority of crimes have any discrimination component.

In terms of response to this, I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts on where the line should be drawn. Either it's above racial hatred (i.e. no discriminatory factors are accounted for) or it's somewhere in the middle (e.g. hatred based on race/religion are bad, but hatred based on relative wealth is okay) or it's below all factors (i.e. all discriminatory factors should be considered - murdering someone becuase you hate their shoes is aggravated). [edit for sp.]

I think that's actually based upon a couple of false premises; that there is crime motivated by hatred of the wealthy - there's crime committed to try to take property from them, certainly, but when was the last reported case of someone attacking or murdering someone because they were rich as opposed to wanting to gain some or all of their wealth?
Murdering someone because you didn't like their footwear would already be considered an aggravating factor at sentencing but on the level of the individual case.
The distinction between that and hatred on the basis of colour or religion is that there is quite obviously a problem that extends way beyond individual cases (vile though they may be) of attacks on the basis of footwear or musical taste. While crimes aggravated by race or religion are relatively low in number, they are quite widespread and indicative of a broader tendency toward discrimination and hatred based upon religion or race which is (or should be) unacceptable. By explicitly declaring such motivations to be aggravating factors, society explicitly declares that attitudes like that (and I would argue that there should be equivalent provision for crimes aggravated by hatred on the basis of sexuality) are simply unacceptable, and if they are found to have aggravated a crime, then the offender will receive a commensurately harder sentence. Again, I have no problem with that.

[Woodchuck2000]

I think that got somewhat bogged down in detail rather than principle. My main question, to which I cannot find an answer in your reply, is: What should determine whether a particular discriminatory factor is provided for in the legislature, and should there be an aggravative hierachy in which certain classes of aggravation are more serious than others?

[Flibb]

Firstly,

Its not the specific groups of people (asians,blacks etc) fault that the media chose to write that its a racially motivated attack.


Education is the key not ignorance. Its not the publics fault the media is a pile of pi$$.

I think the part that annoys many is that its not the press that treats it differently, its the judiciary. If its deemed to be a racially aggravated crime then the maximum sentence is longer.

[nichomach]

I think that got somewhat bogged down in detail rather than principle. My main question, to which I cannot find an answer in your reply, is: What should determine whether a particular discriminatory factor is provided for in the legislature, and should there be an aggravative hierarchy in which certain classes of aggravation are more serious than others?

If there is a clear and identifiable form of discrimination or prejudice which is an identifiable factor in motivating or aggravating criminality, and if that discrimination or prejudice extends to an entire group of people - racism, religious hatred and homophobia are obvious examples, but there may be others - then it's appropriate in my view to specifically legislate that it should be regarded as an aggravating factor, giving grounds for harsher sentencing. That doesn't exclude other aggravating circumstances being considered on a case by case basis, but it does acknowledge that there is a broader problem which extends beyond an individual case.

There already exists a broad range of circumstances which may be held to specifically aggravate an offence; not so much a hierarchy, but just a list of factors. There's a LOT of potential factors, but the primary reference you could start with would be the Sentencing Guidelines Council's "Overarching Principles: Seriousness", available HERE (PDF)

1.22 Factors indicating higher culpability:
o Offence committed whilst on bail for other offences*
o Failure to respond to previous sentences#
o Offence was racially or religiously aggravated*
o Offence motivated by, or demonstrating, hostility to the victim based on his or her sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation)#
o Offence motivated by, or demonstrating, hostility based on the victim’s disability (or presumed disability)#
o Previous conviction(s), particularly where a pattern of repeat offending is disclosed #
o Planning of an offence
o An intention to commit more serious harm than actually resulted from the offence
o Offenders operating in groups or gangs
o ‘Professional’ offending
o Commission of the offence for financial gain (where this is not inherent in the offence itself)
o High level of profit from the offence
o An attempt to conceal or dispose of evidence
o Failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the offender’s behaviour
o Offence committed whilst on licence
o Offence motivated by hostility towards a minority group, or a member or members of it
o Deliberate targeting of vulnerable victim(s)
o Commission of an offence while under the influence of alcohol or drugs
o Use of a weapon to frighten or injure victim
o Deliberate and gratuitous violence or damage to property, over and above what is needed to carry out the offence
o Abuse of power
o Abuse of a position of trust
1.23 Factors indicating a more than usually serious degree of harm:
o Multiple victims
o An especially serious physical or psychological effect on the victim, even if unintended
o A sustained assault or repeated assaults on the same victim
o Victim is particularly vulnerable
o Location of the offence (for example, in an isolated place)
o Offence is committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service
to the public
o Presence of others e.g. relatives, especially children or partner of the victim
o Additional degradation of the victim (e.g. taking photographs of a victim as part of a
sexual offence)
o In property offences, high value (including sentimental value) of property to the victim,
or substantial consequential loss (e.g. where the theft of equipment causes serious
disruption to a victim’s life or business)

As you can see, it's quite a long list, and there's no set amount that each increases a sentence by, but they're all regarded as aggravating, and I'm OK with that.

[Woodchuck2000]

If there is a clear and identifiable form of discrimination or prejudice which is an identifiable factor in motivating or aggravating criminality, and if that discrimination or prejudice extends to an entire group of people - racism, religious hatred and homophobia are obvious examples, but there may be others - then it's appropriate in my view to specifically legislate that it should be regarded as an aggravating factor, giving grounds for harsher sentencing. That doesn't exclude other aggravating circumstances being considered on a case by case basis, but it does acknowledge that there is a broader problem which extends beyond an individual case.

Why should it matter whether that discrimination or prejudice extends to an entire group of people? Do people as members of a collective assume greater rights than individuals? How big does an "entire group of people" have to be before it become protected by your definition?

Anyway, I digress... As you said earlier:

I'd argue that hatred is not abstract in any event; hatred has to have an object, be it an individual or a group.

From what you have posted thus far, I infer the following. Consider two otherwise identical murders, one motivated by racial hatred and the other by a commensurate hatred with another motivation. Although the racial hatred is specifically provided-for, it is no more significant in its judicial effect than the 'other aggravating circumstance, when considered on a case-by-case basis'. From what you have so far posted, this must be the case unless there is some form of 'hierarchy of hate'.

If hatred cannot be abstract then in every pre-meditated crime inspired by hate, there must be some reason for its existence, some 'clear and identifiable form of discrimination or prejudice which is an identifiable factor in motivating or aggravating criminality' - for without this, the hatred, by your definition, cannot exist.

Why then, is a racially-motivated murder more serious than a non-racially-motivated murder with a commensurate motivation outside of the specific provisions of current legislation?

[nichomach]

Why should it matter whether that discrimination or prejudice extends to an entire group of people? Do people as members of a collective assume greater rights than individuals? How big does an "entire group of people" have to be before it become protected by your definition?

You are mistaken; aggravating factors on an individual basis are already covered by existing sentencing guidelines. It is not that an individual acquires greater rights than a group, merely that it is appropriate to state where a problem exists with hatred toward a specific group that this should be considered as an aggravating factor alongside other potential aggravating factors - didn't you read the extract from the sentencing guidelines? You seem obsessed with the idea that this somehow grants greater rights to members of minorities when this is not actually the case.

Anyway, I digress... As you said earlier:
From what you have posted thus far, I infer the following. Consider two otherwise identical murders, one motivated by racial hatred and the other by a commensurate hatred with another motivation. Although the racial hatred is specifically provided-for, it is no more significant in its judicial effect than the 'other aggravating circumstance, when considered on a case-by-case basis'. From what you have so far posted, this must be the case unless there is some form of 'hierarchy of hate'.

That's pretty much the case; as you can see above, it is listed as one of a number of potential aggravating factors, and they are not ranked in any hierarchy. It is up to the judge in each case to determine the weighting given to each aggravating or mitigating factor.

If hatred cannot be abstract then in every pre-meditated crime inspired by hate, there must be some reason for its existence, some 'clear and identifiable form of discrimination or prejudice which is an identifiable factor in motivating or aggravating criminality' - for without this, the hatred, by your definition, cannot exist.

You are logically incorrect; prejudice explicitly states and discrimination implies that even in the absence of any specific knowledge of a person you are predisposed to dislike/hate them because they belong to a specific group. It is perfectly possible for hatred to be grounded in a specific knowledge of or perception of an individual after coming to know them as an individual without starting from a prejudiced position. "I hate you because you slept with my wife/stole my girlfriend/ foreclosed on my mortgage" is entirely different to "I hate all blacks/gays/Jews, therefore I hate you because you are black/gay/Jewish". The former is hatred on the basis of individual characteristics or perceptions, the latter a hatred of an entire group which predisposes the person doing the hating to hate every member of that group.

Why then, is a racially-motivated murder more serious than a non-racially-motivated murder with a commensurate motivation outside of the specific provisions of current legislation?

It is not, necessarily; bear in mind that the guidelines don't just cover hatred on the basis of race or religion or sexuality - they extend to cover pretty much any form of hatred toward any minority group, or victimisation of any particularly vulnerable offender. Again, read the factors that indicate higher culpability or harm; they'd certainly, for instance cover the stabbing you referred to above on a couple of grounds. It is merely that the law states that discrimination against anyone on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexuality (or membership of any minority group) will not be tolerated, and where it motivates or aggravates an offence, it doesn't change the gravity of the offence committed, but it IS an aggravating factor to be weighed alongside other potential aggravating or mitigating factors when sentencing.

You seem obsessed with the idea of racist crime, where in fact the guidelines mention that as one of a potential 32 aggravating factors which may be considered. The fact is that discrimination on many grounds exists, and that victims of discriminatory crime are ALREADY being treated differently, either by being victimised where they would not otherwise be or by having the crimes committed against them aggravated in their severity or frequency by that discrimination. That's been recognized as a problem, and the law has been modified to take account of that.

[superscaper]

The thing that worries me is that race is such a useless word to use as it covers so many definitions as to make it almost mean anything. Personally I'd always thought of race as meaning specific biological differences between groups of people and so race should only ever be important to your doctor. I know that's pretty idealistic. Prejudice against immigrants for example would be xenophobic but I don't think necessarily racist. There should be a clear distinction of what race is. A "prejudicial hate crime" is a hate crime and I don't see why we need to distinguish a specific set of laws just for race (whatever race means).